hypothetically, I suppose it could alternately be done by instances just federating the number of votes from their instance and only storing who voted what internally. Though then you might get issues with very easy vote manipulation if a server just says a lot of people voted a certain way without needing to make accounts to “justify” the fake votes.
Funnily enough the instance my masto is on also uses that motto, tho for an entirely different reason
If you don’t want your posts/content to appear on other websites from the one you posted it on, why would you use a federated platform in the first place? Isn’t the entire point of these kinds of platforms that this kind of content is shared between sites?
And on a mostly unrelated side note, that bit about people trying to force the website to display CP to get the owner in legal trouble is exactly the reason why strict liability crimes that don’t care about intent are a bad idea
hypothetically, what stops a spam group from creating their own instance to register accounts on, or several such? It’d get defederated quickly once the attack got going, sure, but it would take time for this to get done, and in the meantime the spam gets in
What happened in South Korea in 2015?
I mean, isn’t this exactly what we would expect? Big influx of people when reddit does something unpopular and people want alternatives, then a decrease as the anger fades and people either decide they don’t like Lemmy for some reason, or just settle down into their normal, less active amount of posting, stabilizing at a number of users lower than the peak but higher than before the influx. Assuming that Lemmy still is around the next time Reddit gets people mad, it’ll happen again, just like how Mastodon gets an influx of new users whenever Twitter does something to upset it’s userbase.
I’m not sure I get what you mean about friends, wouldn’t having a partner that gets along with one’s friends be a good thing?
And that’d be reasonable for you to do. However, having a network choose to remove something, or cut ties with servers in the network that don’t in an attempt to persuade them to remove that thing, isn’t exactly the same as a government ordering a thing be removed. The former doesn’t give much avenue for a malicious actor to suppress something that isn’t in their interest, because they can hardly control the collective actions of users on the network, but the latter does by creating a single point of decision making on the network’s content from the outside. Not that the motivations in wanting that video gone were bad, but there is an element of risk to making it possible for a government entity to remove something from a social network, even if the thing they want gone this time is something that really shouldn’t be there.